[Peace-discuss] Just Foreign Policy News, October 10, 2006

[Robert Naiman]

Just Foreign Policy News
October 10, 2006

Sign the petition - No War with Iran!
As Bush Administration officials claim vindication for their "no
direct negotiations" policy with regard to North Korea, even though
this policy has just led to a spectacular failure, Just Foreign
Policy, in collaboration with Peace Action, is sponsoring a petition
against war with Iran. To sign the petition, use this link:
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/involved/iranpetition.html

Signing the petition takes less than a minute.

Just Foreign Policy now has a blog on Huffington Post. Our first post,
"Yes, It Is Possible to Stop War with Iran," is still on the front
page at this writing: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/; the direct URL
is
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-weisbrot-and-robert-naiman/yes-it-is-possible-to-st_b_31402.html


Summary:
U.S.
North Korea's apparently successful explosion of a small nuclear
device Monday illuminates a failure of nearly two decades of atomic
diplomacy, writes David Sanger in the New York Times.

The Bush administration rejected anew Tuesday direct talks with North
Korea, AP reports.

The US proposed tough new UN sanctions on North Korea Monday. At an
emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, the US pressed for
international inspections of all cargo moving into and out of North
Korea, and a ban on all trading in military goods and services with
the country. Russia and China, which have opposed tough sanctions, did
not signal they were ready to go along with the American proposal.

North Korea's government is too erratic, too brutal, and too willing
to sell what it has built to have a nuclear bomb, writes the New York
Times in an editorial. But there is no military solution.

US military commanders and civilian policy makers are refining plans
for a blockade of North Korean shipments to prevent the sale of a
completed bomb or nuclear components, the Times reports. Officers say
Navy and Air Force equipment are already in the region, and more could
be deployed rapidly.

Iran
The Bush Administration's rejection of security guarantees for Iran in
exchange for suspending its uranium enrichment is counterproductive to
any movement on the standoff over Iran's nuclear program, wrote Kevin
Martin of Peace Action in a letter to the Washington Times. The Bush
administration is clearly laying the groundwork for launching a
military attack on Iran without explicit congressional or U.N.
approval.

Iraq
The shift of U.S. troops from Western Iraq to Baghdad risks
undermining previous gains in the west, AP reports. "We do not have
sufficient troop strength to secure the entire country
simultaneously," a military analyst said.

Palestine
Qatar, which has not traditionally played a major role in Palestinian
affairs, tried Monday to revive negotiations on a national unity
government between Fatah and Hamas.

China
North Korea's action leaves Beijing little choice but to take a
tougher approach, writes Joseph Kahn for the New York Times. But
Chinese leaders still see highly punitive sanctions as unpalatable and
counterproductive.

North Korea
The North Korean test appears to have been a nuclear detonation but
was fairly small by traditional standards, and possibly a failure or a
partial success, federal and private analysts said yesterday.

South Korea
South Korea warned Monday that it would "sternly deal" with North
Korea's announcement that it conducted a nuclear test, saying the
action could lead to a "nuclear arms buildup" in the region. But its
president suggested that he was not ready to give up yet on his
country's "sunshine policy" of engaging North Korea.

Burma
Burma is staying pretty much where it has been since the military
quashed a pro-democracy uprising by force in 1988, the New York Times
reports. It remains one of the poorest and most repressed nations in
Asia.

Mexico
Leaders of protests trying to bring down a Mexican state governor they
say is corrupt tentatively agreed late on Monday to scale back a
months-old occupation of the tourist city of Oaxaca.

Contents:
U.S.
1) For U.S., a Strategic Jolt After North Korea's Test
David E. Sanger, New York Times,  October 10, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/world/asia/10assess.html
North Korea's apparently successful explosion of a small nuclear
device Monday represents a defiant bid for survival and respect. For
Washington and its allies, it illuminates a failure of nearly two
decades of atomic diplomacy. North Korea is more than just another
nation joining the nuclear club. It has never developed a weapons
system it did not ultimately sell on the world market, and it has
periodically threatened to sell its nuclear technology. So the end of
ambiguity about its nuclear capacity foreshadows a very different era,
in which the concern may not be where a nation's warheads are aimed,
but in whose hands its weapons and skill end up.

As Democrats were quick to note Monday, Bush and his aides never gave
as much priority to countering a new era of proliferation as they did
to overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Bush and his aides contend Iraq was
the more urgent threat. But the North's reported nuclear test now
raises the question of whether it is too late for the president to
make good on his promise that he would never let the world's "worst
dictators" obtain the world's most dangerous weapons.

Until Monday the closest Bush came to drawing a red line for the North
was in May 2003, when he declared the US and South Korea "will not
tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea." The CIA's estimates since
have been that the US has been tolerating exactly that. Notably, Bush
did not repeat that threat Monday morning. Instead, he drew a new red
line, one that appeared to tacitly acknowledge the North's possession
of weapons. The US would regard as a "grave threat," he said, any
transfer by North Korea of nuclear material to other countries or
terrorist groups, and would hold Kim's government "fully accountable
for the consequences of such actions."

To critics of Bush's counterproliferation policy, this seemed a
recognition that the North had successfully defied American, Chinese
and Japanese warnings about building weapons and testing them, and was
now simply trying to manage the aftermath. North Korea, it appears, is
taking a page from Pakistan's strategic playbook: it exploded its
first nuclear device in 1998, endured three years of sanctions, and
now has emerged as a "major non-NATO ally" of the US.

2) White House Rejects North Korea Talks
Associated Press, October 10, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-NKorea.html
The Bush administration rejected anew Tuesday direct talks with North
Korea and said it would not be intimidated by a reported threat from
Pyongyang that it could fire a nuclear-tipped missile unless the U.S.
acts to resolve the standoff. The White House said, meanwhile, there
is a ''remote possibility'' that the world never will be able to fully
determine whether North Korea succeeded in conducting a nuclear test
Monday.

North Korea stepped up its threats, saying it could fire a nuclear
nuclear-tipped missile unless the U.S. acts to resolve the standoff, a
news agency reported Tuesday. But even if Pyongyang has nuclear
weapons, experts say it's unlikely the North has a bomb design small
and light enough to be mounted atop a missile.

In response to North Korea's purported nuclear test, the US is
pressing at the UN for stringent sanctions, including a trade ban on
military and luxury items, the power to inspect all cargo entering or
leaving the country, and freezing assets connected with its weapons
programs.

Former UN ambassador Bill Richardson said the Bush administration
should abandon its long-standing refusal to engage in direct talks
with North Korea. He said Bush was right to seek sanctions in the
U.N., but should next move to direct talks with the reclusive nation.
Richardson echoed the message that former Secretary of State Baker
said Sunday, as Baker urged the administration to talk directly to
adversaries around the world.

The administration has refused one of North Korea's key demands: that
the US engage in direct one-on-one talks. Instead the administration
insists on sticking to the so-called six-party format, where Russia,
China, South Korea and Japan have joined the US in talking to North
Korea. Asked about the possibility of U.S. military action against
North Korea, including a possible naval blockade, Bolton said, ''Well,
we're not at that point yet.''

3) Bush Rebukes North Korea; U.S. Seeks New U.N. Sanctions
Warren Hoge & Sheryl Gay Stolberg, New York Times, October 10, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/world/asia/10korea.html
The US proposed tough new UN sanctions on North Korea on Monday after
its reported test of a nuclear device, and Bush warned the North that
he considered its activity a potential threat to American national
security. At an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, the US
pressed for international inspections of all cargo moving into and out
of North Korea to detect weapons-related material, and a ban on all
trading in military goods and services with the country.

Russia and China, which have veto power and have consistently opposed
tough sanctions, did not signal that they were ready to go along with
the American proposal. Britain, France and Japan said they were also
pressing for strong sanctions, which the Council is expected to debate
in the coming days.

Coming just a month before the November elections, North Korea's
reported test on Monday morning had immediate political ramifications.
Democrats were already using their campaigns to argue that the Iraq
war had made the United States less secure by diverting attention away
from threats like North Korea; now they are using the North's claim to
hammer away at their theme.

Bush issued a pointed, albeit carefully worded, warning to the North
not to export any nuclear technology it might have. In the past, North
Korea has sold its weapons systems to other countries. "The transfer
of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to states or nonstate
entities would be considered a grave threat to the United States,"
Bush said. "And we would hold North Korea fully accountable of the
consequences of such action."

4) North Korea and the Bomb
Editorial, New York Times, October 10, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/opinion/10tue1.html
North Korea's government is too erratic, too brutal, and too willing
to sell what it has built to have a nuclear bomb. There is also no
military solution, not least because intelligence experts haven't a
clue where Pyongyang has hidden its weapons labs or its stock of
plutonium. It is a truism that no country that has tested a nuclear
weapon has ever been pressured or cajoled into giving it up. But
neither has any nuclear postulant been as vulnerable to outside
pressure and bribery as this regime.

The Bush administration seems to want to impose limited sanctions on
North Korea - and inspections of all cargo going into and out of the
country - until it agrees to abandon its entire weapons program. We
fear that won't be enough to quickly change Pyongyang's mind - while
key players like China won't sign on to never-ending punishments. We
believe this must instead be a two-step process, starting with a
Security Council-ordered ban on all trade, until the North agrees to
stop expanding its arsenal. Pyongyang must be told that there will be
no further attempt at negotiation until it halts all plutonium
production, forswears additional tests and readmits UN inspectors.

The North Koreans are likely to back down only if China chokes off
their oil supply and other essential trade. Until now Beijing has
refused to use its enormous leverage, fearing that too much pressure
could topple the North Korean government and unleash a mass of
refugees over its border.

5) Pentagon Assesses Responses, Including a Possible Blockade
Thom Shanker, New York Times, October 10, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/world/asia/10military.html

Now that North Korea seems to have made good on its threat with what
appears to be a nuclear test, US military commanders and civilian
policy makers are refining plans in the event that Bush orders a
blockade of North Korean shipments to prevent the sale of a completed
bomb or nuclear components. Senior officers say Navy and Air Force
combat and surveillance equipment are already in the region, and more
could be deployed rapidly.

Still, any unilateral effort by the US to cordon off North Korea by
sea and air could founder along the country's lengthy land border with
China."This is a tough question," one senior official said Monday.
"The only good options were before North Korea got the bomb. There are
no good options now."

Many staff officers contend that North Korea's ballistic missile and
nuclear programs are not primarily intended as part of a plan for a
land attack on South Korea. If anything, North Korea probably regards
its effort to develop a nuclear arsenal as a deterrent against an
attack by the US.

While land combat is not an imminent threat, Pentagon and military
officials say, the prolonged deployments of ground forces in Iraq and
Afghanistan have doubtless complicated planning for the Korean
Peninsula.

Should more ground forces be required for South Korea, only a handful
of combat brigades stand ready in the US, Pentagon and military
officials say. To bolster the force, additional combat units now
getting ready for tours in Iraq could be pointed to the Pacific
instead, with troops already in Iraq staying there longer than
planned.

Pentagon officials acknowledge that the sustained deployments to Iraq
and Afghanistan have heightened the risks that would be faced if there
were a Korean conflict because important equipment is committed to the
Middle East.

Iran
6) Is Bush plotting war with Iran?
Kevin Martin, Peace Action, Letter, Washington Times,
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20061004-090354-4806r_page2.htm
The Bush Administration's rejection of security guarantees for Iran in
exchange for suspending its uranium enrichment is counterproductive to
any movement on the standoff over Iran's nuclear program. Iran is
being told that even if you do as we say and suspend uranium
enrichment, we may bomb you or otherwise pursue 'regime change'
anyway. Is it any wonder Iran is not capitulating to U.S. demands?
Linking Iran with Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian militant
groups is no accident. The Bush administration is clearly laying the
groundwork for launching a military attack on Iran without explicit
congressional or U.N. approval by blurring distinctions among these
countries and organizations. If they can all be portrayed as enemies
in the "war on terror," Bush could cite his authority to attack them
in the name of prosecuting said "war" under previous congressional
resolutions. So he could start a war on his own say-so.

Iraq
7) U.S. Gains in Parts of Iraq in Jeopardy
Antonio Castaneda, Associated Press, Monday, October 9, 2006; 2:28 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/09/AR2006100900602.html
For months, soldiers from the 172nd Stryker Brigade fought in western
Iraq, trying to clamp off the flow of foreign fighters and suicide
bombers commanders said were terrorizing Baghdad. Now hundreds of
these same U.S. soldiers have been sent to deal with what U.S.
officials say is an even greater threat - attacks between Sunnis and
Shiites in the capital. Left behind in Anbar province are fewer U.S.
troops - and fears that hard-won gains could be in jeopardy from a
Sunni Arab insurgency that is far from defeated.

"Seeing the fruits of your labor lost is frustrating," said Capt.
David Ramirez, who was sent to Baghdad from western Iraq. The shift
from Anbar to Baghdad underscores the problems facing the
overstretched, 140,000-strong U.S. military force in Iraq. To secure
Baghdad, the Army had to extend the tours of thousands of soldiers,
including hundreds from the 172nd who had already returned home only
to be shipped back to Iraq.

"We do not have sufficient troop strength to secure the entire country
simultaneously," Andrew Krepinevich, a military analyst, told AP.
"Trying to be strong everywhere will lead us to being strong nowhere."

Palestine
8) Qatar Emerges as a Mediator Between Fatah and Hamas
Greg Myre, New York Times, October 10, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/world/middleeast/10mideast.html
Qatar, which has not traditionally played a major role in Palestinian
affairs, tried Monday to revive negotiations on a national unity
government between Fatah and Hamas. In Gaza Monday, Qatar's foreign
minister, Sheik Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani, shuttled between the
Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, of Fatah, and Prime
Minister Ismail Haniya, of Hamas. The Qatari diplomat was seeking to
bring the Palestinian leaders back into face-to-face negotiations that
fell apart after a tentative agreement was reached last month to form
a united government. Until last week, Egypt was the main Arab mediator
in the bitter rivalry between Hamas and Fatah.  Qatar's role began to
emerge when Abbas and the exiled Hamas political leader, Khaled
Meshal, both turned up in Qatar. Both reportedly held talks with
Qatari officials, including the foreign minister, who presented a
six-point plan for the Palestinian unity government.

China
9) Angry China Is Likely to Toughen Its Stand on Korea
Joseph Kahn, New York Times, October 10, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/world/asia/10china.html
North Korea has had increasingly testy relations with China in recent
years. But it was not until Monday, moments after North Korea
apparently exploded a nuclear device, that China accused it of a
"brazen" violation of its international commitments. The wording is
one indication that a nuclear test would cross a red line for China,
which has devoted years of painstaking diplomatic effort, and staked
its delicate relationship with the US, on the premise that it could
deliver a peaceful, negotiated solution to the nuclear standoff with
North Korea.

That policy, Chinese analysts say, seems to have failed, and North
Korea's action leaves Beijing little choice but to take a tougher
approach. But Chinese leaders still see highly punitive sanctions as
unpalatable and counterproductive, and the country's elite remains
sharply divided over how far to distance China from its neighbor, and
how closely to embrace the Bush administration, several senior Chinese
foreign policy experts said.

"China is disappointed and angry and will be willing to support
stronger sanctions," said Jin Canrong, a foreign policy expert at
People's University in Beijing. "But I think that is different from
saying there will be a drastic change." The reason there is unlikely
to be a major policy change, experts said, is that North Korea has
sharply increased tensions without fundamentally changing China's
calculation of its national interests.

Its priorities remain, first and foremost, promoting internal economic
development,. China's leaders concluded long ago that generating high
growth in its gross domestic product required a benign relationship
with the world's major powers, secure borders and open markets - in a
word, stability. China would like to achieve a denuclearization of the
Korean Peninsula but has shown few signs of accepting war or a forced
change of government as an acceptable way to achieve that goal.

North Korea
10) Blast May Be Only a Partial Success, Experts Say
William J. Broad & Mark Mazzetti, New York Times, October 10, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/world/asia/10detect.html
The North Korean test appears to have been a nuclear detonation but
was fairly small by traditional standards, and possibly a failure or a
partial success, federal and private analysts said yesterday.
Throughout history, the first detonations of aspiring nuclear powers
have tended to pack the destructive power of 10,000 to 60,000 tons -
10 to 60 kilotons - of conventional high explosives. But the strength
of the North Korean test appears to have been a small fraction of
that: around a kiloton or less, according to scientists monitoring the
global arrays of seismometers that detect faint trembles in the earth
from distant blasts.

South Korea
11) Tough Talk From Seoul, if Little Will for a Fight
Norimitsu Onishi, New York Times, October 10, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/world/asia/10seoul.html
South Korea warned Monday that it would "sternly deal" with North
Korea's announcement that it conducted a nuclear test, saying the
action could lead to a "nuclear arms buildup" in the region. But
President Roh Moo-hyun suggested that he was not ready to give up yet
on his country's "sunshine policy" of engaging North Korea.

Roh said South Korea "has lost ground in arguing for dialogue" against
calls for stronger punitive measures, including economic sanctions,
against North Korea. Tuesday morning, Roh went further by saying "a
reconsideration of our engagement policy is needed." The government's
response to the nuclear test was firmer and quicker than its reaction
to North Korea's missile launchings in early July. Still, there was
some ambiguity in his remarks, and experts in South Korea remained
divided Monday over whether a nuclear test would simply re-emphasize
the hard reality that the policy of engagement is the lesser of evils
in dealing with its unpredictable neighbor.

Burma
12) Bold Gestures on Myanmar Only Underscore Stagnation and Other Troubles
Seth Mydans, International Herald Tribune, October 10, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/world/asia/10burma.html
In Myanmar this week, the generals are reconvening a seemingly endless
convention that has been working, on and off, for 13 years to draw up
a constitution. They portray the meeting as a start on their "road map
to democracy." The United States succeeded in September in placing
Myanmar's human rights record on the agenda of the UN Security
Council. American diplomats call Myanmar a threat to international
peace and security.

The statements by the two countries should not be taken literally. A
consensus among experts on its years of stagnation and repression is
that Myanmar, an isolated Southeast Asian nation, is neither heading
toward democracy nor threatening world peace.

Instead, Burma is staying pretty much where it has been since the
military quashed a pro-democracy uprising by force in 1988. It remains
one of the poorest and most repressed nations in Asia. Its rulers
feint and promise and hunker down; its critics recite its
transgressions and impose economic sanctions; little changes. Local
opponents of the government are arrested, released and arrested again,
and promises to free the pro-democracy leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi are
made and then broken. She has spent 11 of the past 17 years under
house arrest.

Mexico
13) Tentative Deal Reached to End Mexico Oaxaca Crisis
Greg Brosnan & Noel Randewich, Reuters, October 10, 2006
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1010-04.htm
Leaders of protests trying to bring down a Mexican state governor they
say is corrupt tentatively agreed late on Monday to scale back a
months-old occupation of the tourist city of Oaxaca. After thousands
of protesters marched for days to get to Mexico City, the government
and leaders of a teachers union said they made a deal that could see
the protesters cede control of most of downtown Oaxaca to local police
under federal supervision.

Leftist activists and striking teachers have shut down the colonial
center of Oaxaca for four months, hoping to force the resignation of
Gov. Ulises Ruiz, who they accuse of corruption, heavy-handed tactics
and ignoring widespread poverty. Union leader Enrique Rueda said he
agreed to consult the strikers about removing most street barricades
in the city and returning to classes but said they would continue to
push the Senate to make Ruiz step down.  "Since Ulises Ruiz Ortiz is
still there, the conflict has not ended," Rueda said. As part of the
tentative agreement, the government agreed to release protesters who
were jailed in recent months and steadily raise teachers' pay in
coming years, Rueda said.

Thousands of protesters had walked the 280 miles from Oaxaca City.
They arrived at the outskirts of Mexico City Monday. Protesters set up
camp outside the Senate. Senators will decide whether or not Ruiz has
lost control of Oaxaca state and needs to step down.

In Oaxaca City's central square, protesting teachers were surprised at
the terms of the deal. "This is bad because what we want most is for
Ulises to be removed, not so much the salary raise," said teacher
Benito Santiago.

--------
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org

Just Foreign Policy is a membership organization devoted to reforming
U.S. foreign policy so that it reflects the values and interests of
the majority of Americans.